do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-52/21 and C-53/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge (C-53/21) (References for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Obligation for purchasers of services to draw up and submit supporting documents to the tax authorities concerning amounts invoiced by suppliers of services established in another Member State — No such obligation regarding purely domestic supplies of services — Justification — Effectiveness of fiscal supervision — Proportionality)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, corporation tax, equal treatment, establishment, freedom to provide services, invoicing, principle of proportionality, provision of services, supply, tax law








C_2022165EN.01002001.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/20






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge (C-53/21)
(Joined Cases C-52/21 and C-53/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Obligation for purchasers of services to draw up and submit supporting documents to the tax authorities concerning amounts invoiced by suppliers of services established in another Member State - No such obligation regarding purely domestic supplies of services - Justification - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision - Proportionality)
(2022/C 165/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL (C-53/21),

Defendant: État belge (C-52/21 and C-53/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires that any company established on the territory of that Member State submit statements to the tax authorities concerning payments for services purchased from suppliers established in another Member State in which the latter are subject to legislation on the accounting system of undertakings and under the obligation to issue invoices in accordance with legislation on value added tax, failing which a corporation tax levy of 50 % or 100 % of the value of those services is to be made, whereas, in accordance with an administrative practice, the former Member State imposes no equivalent obligation where those services are provided by suppliers established on its territory.


(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Case C-451/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 3(1) — Scope — Flight with connecting flight departing from and arriving in a third country — Single reservation through a Community air carrier — Stopover in the territory of a Member State — Article 5(1)(c)(iii) and Article 7 — Delayed alternative flight — Taking into account of the actual arrival time for the purposes of compensation)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2022165EN.01001201.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/12






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG
(Case C-451/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 3(1) - Scope - Flight with connecting flight departing from and arriving in a third country - Single reservation through a Community air carrier - Stopover in the territory of a Member State - Article 5(1)(c)(iii) and Article 7 - Delayed alternative flight - Taking into account of the actual arrival time for the purposes of compensation)
(2022/C 165/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is not applicable to a flight with a connecting flight, booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by a Community air carrier, if both the departure airport of the first flight and the arrival airport of the second flight are in the territory of a third country and only the airport where the stopover takes place is in the territory of a Member State.


(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-605/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo -Portugal) — Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Applicability ratione temporis — Supplies subject to VAT — Supplies of services for consideration — Criteria — Intra-group relationship — Supplies consisting in repairing or replacing components of wind turbines under guarantee and preparing non-compliance reports — Debit notes issued by the supplier of services with no reference to VAT — Deduction by the supplier of the VAT charged on the goods and services for which it has been invoiced by its subcontractors in respect of those supplies)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, debt, maintenance, power plant, producer's liability, provision of services, supplier, tax relief, wind energy








C_2022165EN.01001902.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/19






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo -Portugal) — Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-605/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Applicability ratione temporis - Supplies subject to VAT - Supplies of services for consideration - Criteria - Intra-group relationship - Supplies consisting in repairing or replacing components of wind turbines under guarantee and preparing non-compliance reports - Debit notes issued by the supplier of services with no reference to VAT - Deduction by the supplier of the VAT charged on the goods and services for which it has been invoiced by its subcontractors in respect of those supplies)
(2022/C 165/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that transactions forming part of a contractual framework which identifies a supplier of services, the purchaser of those services and the nature of the services in question, duly accounted for by the taxable person, bearing a heading confirming the nature of the services and having given rise to remuneration received by the supplier constituting the actual value of those services in the form of debit notes, form a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding, first, any absence of profit for the taxable person and, second, the existence of a guarantee relating to the goods in respect of which those services were provided.


(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Council Decision of 24 February 2022 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2022 2022/C 102/03
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU migration policy, amending budget, commitment of expenditure, common security and defence policy, draft budget (EU), economic and social cohesion, financial year, general budget (EU), multiannual financial framework




C_2022102EN.01000301.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/3






COUNCIL DECISION
of 24 February 2022
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2022
(2022/C 102/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106A thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2022 was definitively adopted on 24 November 2021 (2),










—


on 28 January 2022, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for the financial year 2022,










—


the adoption of the Communication on the adjustment of the multiannual financial framework and draft amending budget No 1 are necessary conditions for the implementation in 2022 of all programmes which were not adopted in 2021 by the first instalment of budgetary commitments and the payment of pre-financing under these programmes. All 27 Member States are concerned by this re-programming exercise. The Council needs to proceed without delay with the adoption of its position on draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for 2022, which would prevent further delays in the implementation of the programmes. It is therefore justified to provide for an exception to the eight-week period referred to in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the TEU, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2022 was adopted on 24 February 2022.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/


Done at Brussels, 24 February 2022.


For the Council


The President

A. PANNIER-RUNACHER




(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 45, 24.2.2022, p. 1.
Case T-442/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2022 — Thomas and Julien v Council (Action for annulment — Area of freedom, security and justice — Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part — Council decision on the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAEC, United Kingdom, area of freedom, security and justice, cooperation agreement (EU), data protection, exchange of information, information security, national, ratification of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_2022171EN.01003801.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/38






Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2022 — Thomas and Julien v Council
(Case T-442/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Area of freedom, security and justice - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part - Council decision on the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 171/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Rhiannon Thomas (London, United Kingdom), Michaël Julien (Weybridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, who are United Kingdom nationals residing in the United Kingdom, seek partial annulment, first, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 10) and, second, of Council Decision (EU) 2021/689 of 29 April 2021 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene of the European Commission;










3.


Orders Ms Rhiannon Thomas and Mr Michaël Julien to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene;










4.


Orders Ms Thomas, Mr Julien, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Case C-290/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Gāze’ AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 2(3) — Concept of ‘transmission’ — Article 23 — Decision-making powers regarding the connection of storage facilities, liquefied natural gas regasification facilities and industrial customers to the transmission system — Article 32(1) — Third-party access to the system — Possibility of direct connection of final customers to the natural gas transmission system)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, energy distribution, energy grid, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, single market








C_2022165EN.01000901.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/9






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Gāze’ AS
(Case C-290/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 2(3) - Concept of ‘transmission’ - Article 23 - Decision-making powers regarding the connection of storage facilities, liquefied natural gas regasification facilities and industrial customers to the transmission system - Article 32(1) - Third-party access to the system - Possibility of direct connection of final customers to the natural gas transmission system)
(2022/C 165/09)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Latvijas Gāze’ AS

Intervener: Latvijas Republikas Saeima, Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 23 and 32(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not follow from those provisions that Member States are obliged to adopt legislation under which, first, any final customer may choose to be connected either to the transmission system or to the distribution system for natural gas, and, second, the system operator concerned is required to allow him to connect to that system.










2.


Article 23 of Directive 2009/73 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to adopt legislation under which only an industrial customer may connect to the natural gas transmission system.










3.


Article 2(3) and Article 23 of Directive 2009/73 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the transmission of natural gas includes the transmission of natural gas directly to the natural gas supply system of a final customer.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case T-106/22: Action brought on 24 February 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, cereal product, condiment, foodstuff, meat product, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022165EN.01004101.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/41






Action brought on 24 February 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
(Case T-106/22)
(2022/C 165/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BBQLOUMI — European Union trade mark No 12 898 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2021 in Case R 656/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


The Board of Appeal contravened the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the distinctiveness;










—


The Board of appeal wrongly allocated a burden of proof on earlier registered mark holder, the applicant, to show a required level of distinctiveness;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to give proper reasons for its core finding that the earlier collective mark lacked distinctiveness.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10499 – STATE STREET / BBH (INVESTOR)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 130/01
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2022130EN.01000101.xml










23.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10499 – STATE STREET / BBH (INVESTOR))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 130/01)
On 24 February 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10499. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1702 of 12 July 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council by setting out additional elements and detailed rules for the InvestEU Scoreboard (Official Journal of the European Union L 339 of 24 September 2021)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU programme, eligibility criteria, financing, fund (EU), investment aid, investment project, investment promotion








L_2022043EN.01009401.xml










24.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 43/94







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1702 of 12 July 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council by setting out additional elements and detailed rules for the InvestEU Scoreboard

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 339 of 24 September 2021
)


On page 24, in ‘Table 3 – Intermediated financing’, Indicator ‘2. Employment’, range ‘Very good (= 3)’:
for:






‘—


for guarantees: between 100 and 175,’,




read:






‘—


for guarantees: between 101 and 300,’;




for:






‘—


for equity: between 10 and 15.’,




read:






‘—


for equity: between 11 and 15.’.